Talk:National Industrial Recovery Act/GA1
I will be undertaking this review. The article appears detailed, well referenced, well written. It appears stable, and is largely the work of Tim1965, who has produced a range of high quality articles particularly in US Labor history and contemporary bios. All images have free use permissions of some sort attached, which look legit.
The overall structure looks sensible, canvassing background, enactment, structure, legal challenge, and impacts. I would consider creating a slightly more detailed lead - perhaps a first para on background, aim of the act and enactment; and a second para on the legal challenge and impact.
- YAY! - Tim1965 (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I expanded the lead, including cites. I didn't cite the sentences about the Act's structure, though, as that seemed unnecessary. But I appreciate any feedback on this. And thanks again for helping to review this article! - Tim1965 (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just to be cussed, now I think the lead may be too long, however, having checked it over, i think it should remain as it stands except for the removal of this sentence: "The Roosevelt administration began drafting a bill in April 1933, and the legislation was introduced in Congress the following month."
Legal challenge and nullification
- I believe it is incorrect to use the term "nullification" to refer to the ruling of the SCOTUS holding the act unconstitutional. The word nullification has a specific meaning in American constitutional jurisprudence. It refers to the theory that STATES (i.e. not the Federal courts) have the power to declare any given Federal law as unconstitutional and therefore null and void. You can see this fully explained here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_%28U.S._Constitution%29 . A better title for this section would be "Legal Challenge and overturning as Unconstitutional" or words to that effect. Again, specifically, the use of the term "Nullification" here is inaccurate because that term has a specific meaning, and does not reflect what occurred in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Len Katzman (talk • contribs) 20:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- I was a little unsure what was happening here: "The Schechter brothers had been indicted on 60 counts (of which 27 were dismissed by the trial court), acquitted on 14, and convicted in 19". If I have interpreted the article correctly, this perhaps should read "Under the new poultry code, the Schechter brothers were indicted on 60 counts (of which 27 were dismissed by the trial court), acquitted on 14, and convicted in 19". If my proposed revision is incorrect, then that means I haven't understood the circumstances of the origin of the sick chicken case. See what you think.
- Apart from the above, the only other issues were some copyediting and style issues I tried to address as I went. You might want to check my edits and make sure I didn't change the intent of anything. Great job. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)